As Martin Luther and the Reformers held (and died for), only the Word of God can bind the consciences of believers.  Church councils and church decrees (including the Book of Church Order) can and do err.  We do not submit to our brethren when they require us to act against our consciences as informed by Scripture.  Requiring a person to undergo a legal background check in attempt to judge his spiritual character is indeed binding the conscience improperly. 

The 51^st General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), meeting in June 2024, will consider five overtures (amendments to the Book of Church Order) that will require background checks for ordained church leaders.  Some PCA churches have already adopted this practice to screen support staff and other volunteers.  However, I believe “requiring” background checks for elders and deacons is both unwise and unbiblical, for the following reasons.

1. Background checks do not indicate a man’s Christian character or fitness for ministry.

All five presbyteries (Missouri, Ohio, South Texas, Susquehanna Valley, and Warrior) in their overtures appeal to the elder and deacon requirements in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 in support of mandatory background checks.  However, the qualifications for ordained office in these texts are spiritual and moral, not legal.  Background checks do not reveal a man’s present moral character, spiritual maturity, or Christian commitment. They only indicate if he has felony or misdemeanor convictions or court actions in his past.  It is the responsibility of the church through its Sessions and Presbyteries to determine if an elder or deacon candidate has the character in line with 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

To illustrate this, say “John” is an elder candidate in his church.  His Session conducts the mandated background check and finds a misdemeanor conviction for marijuana possession from seven years ago, before he was a member of his church.  Prior to joining his present church, John repented, sought counseling for his sinful habit, and has not used any drugs since.  The background check will not indicate if he is above reproach, sober minded, self-controlled, and able to teach, which are spiritual qualities.  It will not speak to his Christian character or his present fitness to serve as an elder.  In fact, it may prejudice his Session against him simply because he has a legal conviction in his past.  If one argues that John is not above reproach because of his past, then we must concede that the Apostle Paul was not above reproach and could be disqualified from ministry in the PCA.

2. The use of background checks can lead to entanglement with the civil magistrate in approving ordained leaders.

The consequence of background checks is clear:  the civil magistrate becomes involved in the church’s vetting of elders and deacons.  Proponents will argue that the state does not approve or deny ordination.  This is true; however, the civil magistrate, who bears the sword, must be separate from the church, whose authority is only spiritual.  If the PCA implements mandatory background checks, the church must necessarily involve the magistrate, however indirectly, in the ordination of leaders.

3. Rationale given for mandatory background checks is tenuous, at best.

Ohio Presbytery’s rationale for mandatory background checks is the most extensive, and several of their points invite a response.  Their overture first gives the moral character argument:

It is, therefore, clear from the recent debates and votes that the presbyteries of the PCA desire more reflection on the moral character of candidates’ ministries. Background checks are consistent with the recent emphasis on moral character within the PCA and its officers. (Ohio Presbytery Overture p. 3, Lines 32-34)

A legal background check, as I have argued above, is not a judge of a man’s moral character, present spiritual maturity, or his adherence to the biblical leadership requirements.

Ohio Presbytery cites the PCA’s Ad Interim Committee on Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault:

“Background checks, social media checks, and careful reference checks should be used to screen for abusive leadership” (ibid., 1183).  (p. 2, Lines 41-42)

What is not explained is how a legal background check will warn if a ministry candidate has the potential for “abusive leadership,” which is a nebulous concept and difficult to define.  Legal actions in a person’s past do not necessarily demonstrate how he will lead the church as an elder or deacon.  A background check would not reveal vague and ill-defined concepts such as “spiritual abuse” or “emotional abuse”.  I would again use the example of the Apostle Paul, whose hypothetical background check and reference checks would not speak to his calling or gifts as an apostle.

Ohio Presbytery attempts to give a common grace argument in support of their position:

Further, the concept of “extra-biblical” in the objections [to background checks] is not properly defined or defended in the reasoning given by the Overtures Committee of the 50th General Assembly. For instance, neither examination in church history nor the Book of Church Order are required by a clear scriptural command; nonetheless they are requirements for ordination, along with many other things that are not explicitly named in Scripture (BCO 21-4.c; 24-1)…In particular, we confess “there are some circumstances concerning the … government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence” (WCF 1.6) (p. 3, Lines 37-45)

This line of reasoning is weak at best.  Examinations in church history or the BCO do not touch on a person’s legal past, nor does failing these exams have any legal consequence, as could the results of a background check.  Further, churches may take many actions that are permissible or expedient; it does not mean such actions are Biblically wise or appropriate.

Ohio Presbytery includes what could be construed as a veiled threat:

If approved by the General Assembly and Presbyteries as a desired application of Scriptural principles, [mandated background checks] would be capable of binding the conscience of officers (PP 1) who “promise subjection to your brethren in the Lord” (BCO 21-5; 24-6). (p. 4, Lines 14-16)

I am amazed that a PCA presbytery could be so ignorant of both the doctrine of Scripture and church history.  As Martin Luther and the Reformers held (and died for), only the Word of God can bind the consciences of believers.  Church councils and church decrees (including the Book of Church Order) can and do err.  We do not submit to our brethren when they require us to act against our consciences as informed by Scripture.  Requiring a person to undergo a legal background check in attempt to judge his spiritual character is indeed binding the conscience improperly.

Despite Ohio Presbytery’s claim to the contrary (p. 4, lines 5-6), mandating background checks is most certainly the church’s attempt to please both the world and the State.  Is there data showing a massive influx of pedophiles, rapists, drug addicts, spousal abusers, and sex offenders into the ranks of PCA elders and deacons?  Emotional and fear-driven arguments about this do not carry weight here.  Contending that “this is the world we live in now” is not sufficient; the Church must be distinct from the world.  If PCA churches and presbyteries took seriously discipleship and church discipline, if elders led the way in holding Scripture high and applying its principles to their peoples’ lives, then background checks would not and should not be necessary.

The PCA General Assembly and PCA presbyteries should defeat all five overtures to require background checks for ordained leaders, a practice that is both unwise and unbiblical.

Christopher Brown is a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.  He lives in Charleston, South Carolina.